D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Tony Vargas]

moving somebody 10 feet if no flanking rules are in place....

There's a simplified flanking rule in 5e - it's called Pack Tactics, lotsa monsters have it. The rogue sorta does, too, as an SA-qualifier.

Anyway, something like "ally can shift 2" in 4e, would translate to something like "your ally can move up to 10', disengaging for free if adjacent to an enemy, and, if he ends that movement adjacent to an enemy to which another ally of his is adjacent, both gain combat advantage on their next attack on that enemy made before it moves."

 

[Garthanos]

There's a simplified flanking rule in 5e - it's called Pack Tactics, lotsa monsters have it. The rogue sorta does, too, as an SA-qualifier.

Anyway, something like "ally can shift 2" in 4e, would translate to something like "your ally can move up to 10', disengaging for free if adjacent to an enemy, and, if he ends that movement adjacent to an enemy to which another ally of his is adjacent, both gain combat advantage on their next attack on that enemy made before it moves."

so elegant.

 

[Tony Vargas]

so elegant.

Natural language and none of the mental overhead of learning the meaning of "shift" and "flank"

 

[Undrave]

Natural language and none of the mental overhead of learning the meaning of "shift" and "flank"

Keywords seem to work well for Magic...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Keywords seem to work well for Magic...

Ironically, formal keywords & exception-based-design do simplify otherwise complex systems.

 

[generic]

Ironically, formal keywords & exception-based-design do simplify otherwise complex systems.

But, what do hit points represent? Under this paradigm, would you agree that abstraction is a good idea?

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, what do hit points represent?

Y'don't really wanna go there, do ya?

Under this paradigm, would you agree that abstraction is a good idea?

Under the 5e paradigm of natural language accessibility? Maybe. Under the paradigm of formal keywords & exception-based-design? Certainly.

 

[generic]

Y'don't really wanna go there, do ya?Under the 5e paradigm of natural language accessibility? Maybe. Under the paradigm of formal keywords & exception-based-design? Certainly.

I hope you know that I was making a joke. I had jokingly wondered, upthread, whether this thread could reach 50 pages.

But, on the topic of hit points, and why they represent meat...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I hope you know that I was making a joke.

It seemed likely.

But, y'know, remember that if a Warlord thread goes really long, that's proof* that the Warlord class is too controversial ever to see print.

So be careful what you wish for.








* Just like if it peters out and drops off the front page, that's proof there's not enough interest in the class for it ever to see print. (Also anything between the two, likewise, for reasons.)

 

[generic]

It seemed likely.

But, y'know, remember that if a Warlord thread goes really long, that's proof* that the Warlord class is too controversial ever to see print.

So be careful what you wish for.








* Just like if it peters out and drops off the front page, that's proof there's not enough interest in the class for it ever to see print. (Also anything between the two, likewise, for reasons.)

Hey! I disagree with both of those assertions, with extreme prejudice, mind you!